THIS WEEK:

Secret Letter: Climategate bulldog Steve McIntyre has been pursuing a reference by Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for Working Group I (WGI), which covers the scientific basis of the various declarations of global warming / climate change. The letter was referenced in note threatening UK scientists with dire consequences if the letter is released to the public. Equally tenacious Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) apparently obtained the letter from Thomas Peterson of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a Climategate correspondent. McIntyre amusingly asks if Stocker will retaliate against the US, and American scientists. The US is a major funder of the IPCC and climate research in the US and other countries.

The letter, which went to all AR4 Lead Authors, Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors, contains some disturbing statements as to the direction of IPCC science. In its Third Assessment Report (AR3) published in 2001, especially in the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC attempted to suppress climate history, particularly the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with the discredited hockey-stick. In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007, the IPCC largely ignored or dismissed climate history. The letter states that Working Group I will remain firmly behind the findings of AR4.

After a decade of the IPCC suppressing climate history, increasingly, discussions of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are appearing in the literature. If the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), due out in 2013, fails to address climate history, its science will be biased and unreliable. Please see links under Climategate Continued.

****************

Secret Email Addresses: The correspondence of US government officials and employees, when acting in an official capacity, is part of the public record, which legally must be preserved. The law applies to email correspondence as well as physical correspondence. The letter discussed above is an example of NOAA adhering to the law. In the past, some government officials and employees have failed to adhere to the law. The determined Christopher Horner has discovered that a number of government agencies / employees keep secret email addresses where they conduct official business. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one such organization. The director of GISS, James Hansen, is a political activist in global warming alarm and energy policy.

These activities are disturbing because the historic temperature record produced by GISS has been repeatedly changed to the point that the 1930s warm period and the cooling from about 1940 to 1975, which gave alarm of an impending new Ice Age, barely exist. See Global Temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Please see links under Suppressing Scientific (or Public) Inquiry. Please note that, whenever possible, TWTW avoids politically or ideologically slanted links and believes the public disclosure laws apply to all regardless of political party or ideology.

****************

North Atlantic Climate Change: Last week, TWTW linked to a study taken in Svalbard, an archipelago north of the Arctic Circle. The study asserted that the current warm period is warmer than previously warm periods. Since the results are inconsistent with a large body of evidence across Greenland and North America, TWTW suggested that it may be an outlier or part of a cycle. Several readers asserted it was and send examples of prior studies. Euan Mearns referenced a study by Bond, et al, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene”, Science 294 (5549): 2130–2136. Kenneth Towe sent a study by Kenneth Drinkwater showing a dramatic North Atlantic climate shift in the 1920s and 1930s based on temperatures, fish stocks, spawning areas, food biomass, etc.

This week’s NIPCC Reports links to a study reporting on climate change in Iceland for the past 10,200 years (the Holocene). The study indicates there is nothing unusual about the current warm period or the rate of warming.

In addition, past TWTWs have linked to changing Svalbard temperatures especially the December 17, 2011 which linked to an article showing a relationship between the solar cycle and Svalbard temperatures and predicting that the temperatures will decline in the future: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

Also, as linked in the September 24, TWTW, the Antarctic Peninsula appears to undergo cyclical warming and cooling. Please see links under Changing Climate and NIPCC Reports.

****************

Measurement Issues: Roy Spencer reports that he and John Christy are seeing that the Aqua satellite they most depend upon for their temperature monitoring is experiencing increasing noise. They will have to adjust the datasets for this noise, which they hope to accomplish within a few weeks. No doubt, the adjustments will receive intense outside scrutiny and some will declare the instrument noise makes the satellite data unreliable. But those who wish to examine the adjustments will be able to do so before and after they are done. This is in contrast with NASA-GISS historic temperature data which are modified without public announcements. Please see links under measurement issues.

****************

Climate Sensitivity: The amount the earth will warm with a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been a major issue for years. Classical theory indicates that it will be about 1.1 deg C (2 deg F). The IPCC, its models, and the climate establishment insist warming will be more than this because the warming will cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) which will amplify the CO2-caused warming, a net positive feedback. Other climate scientists, such a Richard Lindzen, have stated that based upon their empirical research the warming will be dampened by other climate effects, a net negative feedback. New research indicates that the warming will be 1.1 deg C +/- 0.4 deg C – the same as the classical theory.

The controversy will continue. But, what is interesting is the wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity with the median estimates ranging from 0.7 deg C to 8 deg C. Until this issue is empirically resolved, model projections are simply sophisticated speculation. Please see links under Climate Sensitivity.

****************

Additions and Corrections: Reader William Dwyer corrected TWTW when he pointed out the correct title for the magazine that reported deficiencies in Fisker’s automobile, Karma, was Consumer Reports not Consumers Report. As always TWTW deeply appreciates additions and corrections.

The bloggers suggested that investing in the movie was motivated by something other than an investment diversification plan. Negative marketing (a form of propaganda) can be a prudent investment.

****************

Number of the Week: 1,667 times. Last week TWTW linked to an article on the results from the US Geological Survey (USGS) testing of water wells near Pavillion, Wyoming, which the EPA had declared were contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. The EPA announced that the USGS findings were consistent with the EPA’s earlier findings. According to a UPI, report the USGS findings showed the presence of hydrocarbon benzene, which is considered to be carcinogenic to be within 3 percent of the EPA recommended limit for well water. The EPA had reported that it had found benzene to be 50 times the recommended limit. Thus, the proportion of benzene found in the water by the EPA is 1,667 times the proportion the USGS found. The word consistency has a different meaning to the EPA than to most of us.

It should be noted that the natural gas wells in Pavillion are not deep underground wells in dense shale, but are shallow wells apparently in the Wind River formation which is largely composed of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone, which are far less dense. http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-unit.php?unit=WYTwdr%3B0. Any adverse findings cannot be logically applied to hydraulic fracturing of shale. Please see links under EPA and other Regulators on the March.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

[SEPP Comment: As an amusing sidelight, published hiking guides of the Blue Mountains of Australia state the blue haze is caused by natural organic aerosols. For years, environmentalists in the US have been claiming the Great Smokey Mountains got its name steam coming off the mountains after a thunderstorm and that the haze of the Blue Ridge was caused by automobiles – as if the pioneers who named it had automobiles.]

[SEPP Comment: Efforts to save Earth’s natural resources? “Nearly half of amphibian species, a third of corals, a quarter of mammals, a fifth of all plants and 13 percent of the world’s birds are at risk of extinction, according to the “Red List” compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).”]

[SEPP Comment: Among the important omissions in the given list is that the products from models that have not undergone rigorous testing are speculation, not scientific knowledge and that difference must be emphasized.]

[SEPP Comment: The call for better models ignores the most critical missing element in IPCC climate science – the need to understand climate history and what caused changes long before major emission of greenhouse gases.]

[SEPP Comment: Dr Gilbert Ross states that traveling from western New York towns into Pennsylvania is a bit like traveling during the cold war from East Germany to West Germany – one area is economically stagnant the other prosperous.]

[SEPP Comment: The US has overtaken Russia as the world’s largest natural gas producer, and has also overtaken Russia as the world’s second largest oil producer. The Sierra Club is opposed to expansion of all non-conventional production of oil and gas in the US. However, the Sierra Club does not have much political clout in Russia.]

[SEPP Comment: Balancing the need to protect public welfare (environment) with the need attract capital and expertise necessary to expand oil development that enhances public welfare is challenging to bureaucrats of Brazil.]

Nuclear Energy and Fears

Restricting nuclear power has little effect on the cost of climate policies

[SEPP Comment: Another Made As Instructed numbers game. Restrict CO2 emissions, then calculate the GDP losses with or without nuclear power. The maximum cost of no nuclear is about 20% of climate policy costs. The article does not mention GDP losses from erratic alternative energy, which is considered a substitute for base-load, reliable nuclear. ]

Quote from Shakespeare that applies to wind power: “When Shakespeare’s Owen Glendower boasted, ‘I can call spirits from the vasty deep,’ Henry Hotspur replied: ‘Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?’ Like Glendower’s spirits, the winds answer to no man.”

“The electric car is a good idea, even if the automobile industry doesn’t seem to think so…” “If we don’t create incentives, then the whole thing is going to fail,” the [Green] party said in a statement.

[SEPP Comment: Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are not alone in ignoring consumer sensibility.]

Oh Mann!

Huffington Post Alarmist story featuring Mann and Climate Central full of errors and omissions

[SEPP Comment: Taking on a study that claims that warming oceans will lead to less dissolved oxygen therefore smaller fish. Yet, the ocean acidification fans claim that the oceans that are warming will contain more dissolved carbon dioxide, thus poison fish.]

9 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup”

From the report “The controversy will continue. But, what is interesting is the wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity with the median estimates ranging from 0.7 deg C to 8 deg C. Until this issue is empirically resolved, model projections are simply sophisticated speculation.”

I have noted that the trend of the rise of temperatures since around 1850 has not changed in the era when CO2 concentrations have risen rapidly. There seems to be no CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph. This does not prove anything, but it does give a strong indication that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

This is one skeptic who doesn’t believe that ANY climate change can be attributed to human-emitted CO2. The effect is statistically ionsignificant compared to the variability of CO2 activity, let alone the totality thereof; and CO2 in turn is statistically insignificant compared to the variability of any and all other factors, let alone the totality of any of them. An infinitesimal of an infinitesimal. These facts are irrefutably proven by simple observation and even simpler arithmetic. And no one can “do the match” so as to determine any such effect of human activity with any certainty or accuracy. The problem is too complex mathematically, with more unknown factors and unknown sigmas than known. If anyone claims they can solve this problem, prove it! You’re lying through your teeth

Chad Wozniak says:
October 7, 2012 at 9:08 pm
“And no one can “do the match” so as to determine any such effect of human activity with any certainty or accuracy. The problem is too complex mathematically, with more unknown factors and unknown sigmas than known.”

Chad, an examination of the statistics of two time series can be used to examine possible causation, and if causation is possible, with what lag time. The keyword is Granger causality.
This test has been done for the time series of CO2 concentration and global average temperature by Beenstock and Reingewertzhttp://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

and their test ruled out the possibility of a causation of temperature anomaly by CO2 concentrations. They were not able to rule out the possibility of a derivative of the CO2 concentration being the cause of part of the temperature anomaly.

This would be consistent with the behaviour of a negative feedback circuit with a lag time in the feedback loop.

“Humans added plenty greenhouse gases before industrialisation”
The author’s quote methane emissions annually were greater during the Roman Period
than that of all the current world landfill sites. Do these “scientists” know that the population of the entire Roman Empire was around 40-50 million, around the beginning of the common era; the population of the world was about 300 million. Augustus’s census indicated some 4 million Roman citizens and a later census put the male population around 910,000. Here is a link with slightly different figures (I don’t have the original one):

Going back to those bad Greek pollutors in case you have another paper in the workds, if you’ve read Herodotus’s Histories, Thucydides’s The Peloponnesian War (~500 BC) and other histories, you will be amazed that sieges carried on for a decade involved only a few thousand men. The population of the entire country was 300,000.

For an entire World with a population less than that of the USA, a Roman Empire with the population of South Africa, and a Roman citizenry about the size of Houston, you are going to have to find a natural source for all this gas!

DirkH –
Your analysis would be correct except for the many factors, as I pointed out, that are unknown and whose variability, in particular, are unknown. It may well be that whoever did this analysis did it correctly based on the information they had – the problem is that it is impossible to have complete information to input into the calculation. Also, when values and their sigmas change by the minute, as soon as they do the analysis based on them becomes invalid.

In any case, the historical record, including recently, does rule out CO2 as a significant factor in climate change – as it has been for at least the last 1-1/2 billion years, ever since blue-green algae converted the originally 20 percent CO2 in the atmosphere to the minuscule amounts we have today.

In 1953, American geologists Maurice Ewing and William L. Donn suggested that this [alternating glacials and interglacials] might be the result of the peculiar geography of the Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic region is almost entirely oceanic, but the Arctic Ocean is not free and open. Rather, it is [nearly] landlocked, with large continental masses hemming it in on all sides.
Consider what would happen in such a case. Imagine the Earth’s temperature to be a trifle warmer than it is today [1975] so that there is little or no sea ice in the Arctic Ocean and so that it is an unbroken stretch of liquid surface
The Arctic Ocean would then serve as a source of water vapor which, cooling in the upper atmosphere, would fall as snow. The snow that fell back into the Arctic Ocean would melt, but the snow that fell on the surrounding continental masses would accumulate. Year after year the snow would accumulate, little by little, and the glaciers would form and expand.
The existence of the glaciers would lower the average temperature of the Earth by reflecting back much of the sunlight that fell on them, and slowly sea ice in the Arctic Ocean would form and expand.
Although ice also yields water vapor, it does so in smaller quantities than liquid water does. This means that the more sea ice there is and the smaller the area of open water, the less water vapor is lifted into the atmosphere.
In the Antarctic, even if the sea ice rimming Antarctica expands, there is always a vast free ocean beyond to serve as a vapor reservoir. In the Arctic, however, when the Arctic Ocean freezes, there is comparatively little other ocean in the neighborhood to serve as an alternate reservoir that can supply water vapor that will reach the northern landmasses before precipitation elsewhere.
Therefore, as the Arctic Ocean freezes, the quantity of snowfall over Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia, decreases. This means that even though little of the ice melts in the summer, still less ice will form in the increasingly snowless winters – and the glaciers start to retreat.
As the glaciers retreat, the temperature of the Earth rises slowly and the glaciers retreat still faster (as long as the Arctic Ocean remains frozen). Finally, North America and Eurasia are free of the continental ice sheets while the Arctic Ocean is still covered with sea ice – and that is the situation today. [1975]
Greenland, which is a small Antarctica, a polar landmass entirely surrounded by water, has an ocean to the south that remains as a vapor reservoir even when the ocean to the north freezes, so it retains its ice cap. Its ice cap may survive the interglacials, as it seems to be surviving the present one.
In the course of an interglacial, however, as the temperature continues to rise, the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to shrink in area (already [1975] it only covers some four-fifths of the ocean) and eventually disappears altogether, leaving the Arctic Ocean unbroken liquid surface once more.
As the Arctic sea ice melts, the water vapor delivered into the the atmosphere increases in the polar region, and so does the snowfall, so that the whole thing starts over again.In other words, it is, paradoxically, a warming trend that initiates a glaciation, and long enough period of cooling that heralds the start of deglaciation. [emphasis added]

The information in square brackets, [], is from me. The rest, except typos, is a direct quote. I am not an attorney, but I do not believe a short quote from the text is breaking copyright law. The good doctor believed AGW, but not, as far as I can tell, CAGW. He very rarely got his facts or scientific history wrong.
The present interglacial started something like 10,000 years ago, depending upon your source up to 18,000 years ago. The recorded temperature rise from 1850 or 1950 is exceptional neither in amount nor rate. This strongly suggest AGW, till now, is incorrect.
There has been global cooling, or at least no appreciable global warming, for ten to sixteen years, depending upon the source used. This means a minimum of three times that, 30 to 48 years, is necessary to give a bare indication of AGW statistically. Five times that, 50 to 80 years, would begin to show some indication. Ten times that, 100, to 160 years would show a reasonable indication. And, fifty times that, 500 to 800 years, would be required to provide almost incontrovertible proof.
Someone, please, jump in your time machine and find out.
All prior Pleistocene and Holocene interglacials have been short compared with the glacials. This means there are strong negative feedback mechanisms. I have yet to find what negative feedback mechanisms are actually included in AGW models. If anyone knows and knows their weighting, please inform me.
In order to provide a baseline proof of concept for the global warming models it is necessary to show that without AGW they would show a temperature rise, a peak, and falling temperature into the next glacial. The next glacial was almost universally accepted prior to the AGW models and matches well known prior occurrences.
Better would be to run the models over the time of a previously interglacial where the entire up and down temperature cycle is reasonably well known.
This is simple, but extremely difficult, because the models must be run over a much longer time than can reasonably be done by the most powerful super computer, or so I have read.
At absolute minimum the models must be run without any AGW effects, and compared with actual global temperatures and temperatures produced when run with AGW effects. Remember it has already been warming for 10,000 years or more, and all climatic positive feedbacks are involved in global warming, regardless of whether caused by humans or not.
To the best of my knowledge no AGW modeler has ever furnished:
1) All the actual starting data used, its sources, its tweaking, and the reasons for the tweaking.
2) The equations used in the models.
3) The algorithms developed from these equations.
4) The documentation, internal and external, for the computer code used.
5) The actual computer code used.
Science is, “Fearlessly Find, Follow, and Furnish the Facts.” (F^5). The AGW modelers have repeatedly refused to do this. The motto of The Royal Society is “Nullis in Verba”, loosely translated from the Latin as, “On no one’s word.”, or, “Nothing from authority.” So, do not believe me nor anyone else about scientific or technical matters without checking, and if I or they won’t allow you to check, don’t believe me or them at all.
Unless and until this is done it is not science. It does not matter how many models are done by how many people It does not matter who the people doing this are. It does not matter by what institutions it is done. It does not matter what the consensus is. Nulis in Verba.
There is a relatively new thing called Cloud Computing. Release the code and data. There are plenty of competent computer programmers on the Internet, and widely available open source software developed without any official aid or interference. How many people would allow their personal computers to be used to run the code while the computers weren’t otherwise in use? Would enough be willing to equal or exceed super computer power? I do not know. We will never know until it is attempted.